Just another WordPress.com site

PPH reports “Democratic state Sen. Linda Valentino, a longtime legislator from Saco, is expected to announce that she will not run for re-election, according to several Democratic sources. Valentino plans to announce her decision to retire from politics following the caucus on Sunday.

State Reps. Barry Hobbins and Justin Chenette, both Democrats from Saco, say they plan to run for her seat in the Maine Senate.

“Barring a last-minute reconsideration by Sen. Valentino, my hat’s in the ring,” Hobbins said in a press release.

Chenette, who is serving his second term in the House, said he has long considered Valentino a close mentor and friend. and “wants to continue the legacy she’s laid down.”

Well, now Rep. Barry Hobbins will put on his “senate” hat and bounce back to the Senate! And Justin Chenette “wants to continue” her legacy. Please no!

Any wonder why the sad state of affairs? How can positive change come about with the same players?

On February 23, 2016 it was reported that Sen. David Burns, R-Whiting, announced Monday that he’s not running for re-election in 2016.

Hopefully with the departure of these two senators, someone with knowledge of the constitution and some common sense, will replace these two senators who failed miserably in their duties, oaths and obligations to the people.

Source: Falmouth Today
By Editor:
“Our reporter has been waiting patiently for seven years to testify before the Judiciary Committee of the Maine Legislature about what Fritzsche did to protect lawyers, Peter DeTroy, Ralph Dyer, and David VanDyke from malpractice suits. After three days of testimony from lawyers, Thomas Hallett, Mary Davis (the court appointed and paid for expert witness), and VanDyke, Fritzsche came to the conclusion, in direct opposition to the Maine Bar Rules of Ethics, that both Hallett, who quoted the Rule number in his testimony, and Davis’ testimony that DeTroy could not testify, to his previous lies, in a trial (our accurate description of DeTroy’s proffered pre-trial testimony). The reason for this ruling was JUDGE FRITZSCHE doesn’t KNOW when privilege attaches. You would think that something that basic, that simple, that mundane, would be the easiest thing for any judge, even Fritzsche, to understand.

Fritzsche actually thought that the Nimpcompoop VanDyke could prepare for a trial overnight with NO witness list, NO pretrial motions, and NO clue what he would ask the first witness for the State, Peter DeTroy, who was defending VanDyke for malpractice in another case, after DeTroy made millions in the Car Test case and the Cigarette settlement case. Can you say “Quid pro quo”? Fritzsche, the hack, didn’t think VanDyke having to cross- examine his own lawyer was a conflict of interest, because VanDyke didn’t think it was conflict. Yes, we should let these two legal geniuses decide what is, and what is NOT, a conflict. Right!

Fritzsche, during his testimony, made a point that he thought Pro Se litigants should hire a lawyer. What he left out was our researcher couldn’t find one case, out of 73 reviewed, where Fritzsche ruled in favor of any Pro Se litigant. Translation: hire a lawyer even if you can’t afford one, skip paying your rent for a couple of months to pay your lawyer, and give up eating food if you have to because if you don’t hire a lawyer Fritzsche will rule against you.

The icing on the cake for this charade was several members of the Committee consulting their notes to read the PLANTED questions to give Fritzsche a chance to BS some more about what a great and caring judge he’s been for years. His resume is bereft of any litigation experience prior to being set loose on hapless Maine Defendants by Joe Brennan. The only ‘legal’ experience mentioned was house counsel for some non-profits. Just the background we need for a criminal justice on the bench. It seems Fritzsche missed class at law school when they were teaching Ethics 101 and Conflict of Interest 101, you know the part where they teach you that you CAN’T cross examine your own lawyer.

Apparently, this is the only kind of judge we can get on the bench in Maine and the Judiciary Committee eats this crap up with a spoon, and sic’s one bad judge after another on the destitute defendants of Maine.

No wonder Maine ranks 42nd in corruption in State Government with a grade of “F”.’

In November 2012, Superior Court Justice Paul A. Fritzsche was listed as a member of the Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability until August 31, 2018. See post dated NOVEMBER 18, 2012, HERE.

This indicates that Judges Fristzsche was sitting on the bench while a member of the Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability

As of 11-14-15 – MEMBERS AND STAFF Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability –
The Committee is composed of seven members who serve for one nonrenewable six-year term. Two of the members are judges (from the Superior, District, or Probate Courts), two are lawyers,and three are members of the public (including the current chairperson). The judicial members of the Committee are appointed by the Supreme Judicial Court, and the lawyer and public members are appointed by the Court upon the recommendation of the Governor. The current Committee Members are:

Dr. Anne E. Pooler, Chairperson, until February 3, 2021
Dr. Jill Gordon, until October 7, 2017
Jennifer Nichols Ferguson, Esq., until December 12, 2017
Robert E. Crowley, Esq., until August 31, 2018
Jon P. Van Hoogenstyn, until August 31, 2018
Superior Court Justice Nancy D. Mills, until August 20, 2021
District Court Judge Andre G. Janelle, until August 20, 2021
The Committee has four alternate members (one Superior Court Justice, one District Court Judge, one lawyer, and one public member) who attend Committee meetings and vote when a regular member is absent or is disqualified from participating in a particular matter. The current Alternate Members are:

Associate Justice Ellen A. Gorman, Maine Supreme Judicial Court
In addition, the Committee currently employs a part-time Executive Secretary, who is a lawyer, and an Administrative Assistant. They are:

Cole replaces the former chief justice, Thomas Humphrey, who was sworn in last week by Gov. Paul LePage as an associate justice on the state supreme court.

“I am delighted to announce that Justice Roland A. Cole has agreed to serve as chief justice of the Superior Court effective June 10, 2015,” Saufley said Tuesday in a press release. “We are very fortunate that a judge with his skills and experience is willing to take on the responsibilities of the chief justice of the Superior Court.”

Cole was appointed to the District Court bench in 1981 by Gov. Joseph E. Brennan, the press release said. He was appointed to the Superior Court bench in 1986 by Brennan. Read more HERE.

The Committee is composed of seven members who serve for one nonrenewable six-year term. Two of the members are judges (from the Superior, District, or Probate Courts), two are lawyers,and three are members of the public (including the current chairperson). The judicial members of the Committee are appointed by the Supreme Judicial Court, and the lawyer and public members are appointed by the Court upon the recommendation of the Governor. The current Committee Members are:

Dr. Anne E. Pooler, Chairperson, until February 3, 2021

Dr. Jill Gordon, until October 7, 2017

Jennifer Nichols Ferguson, Esq., until December 12, 2017

District Court Judge Peter J. Goranites, until August 3, 2017

Superior Court Justice Paul A. Fritzsche, until August 31, 2018

Robert E. Crowley, Esq., until August 31, 2018

Jon P. Van Hoogenstyn, until August 31, 2018

The Committee has four alternate members (one Superior Court Justice, one District Court Judge, one lawyer, and one public member) who attend Committee meetings and vote when a regular member is absent or is disqualified from participating in a particular matter. The current Alternate Members are:

Judicial:

Superior Court Justice Roland A. Cole, until August 31, 2018

District Court Judge Patricia G. Worth, until August 3, 2017

Lawyer Member:

Charles W. Smith Jr., Esq., until August 31, 2018

Lay Member:

Christine S. Gianopoulos, M.P.A., until February 3, 2021

Judicial Liaison:

Associate Justice Ellen A. Gorman, Maine Supreme Judicial Court

In addition, the Committee currently employs a part-time Executive Secretary, who is a lawyer, and an Administrative Assistant. They are:

BDN reports “Public Lockout: From Deliberations by the Judiciary Committee of the Maine Legislature.

All legislative committees are mandated by Maine law to conduct hearings, deliberations, and work sessions in public.

But in a May 19 speech on the Senate floor, state Sen. David Dutremble (D-Biddeford) reported that the Judiciary Committee conducted such business in private over the weekend that started May 8. Its deliberations concerned the reappointment of controversial Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz – the judge who issued an illegal gag order in January – and whose reappointment was opposed by many members of the public.

Maine citizens deserve to know what transpired that weekend with their Judiciary Committee. Did the members, in fact, meet behind closed doors and/or have private conversations in violation of state mandates? A legislative inquiry into the actions of the committee is warranted to protect the interests of the public.

Here’s what is clear: Without a single comment or question, the Judiciary Committee on May 12 unanimously recommended that Moskowitz be reappointed. One by one, each committee member simply voted yes. Those of us who witnessed this were dumbfounded. It left us with the uncomfortable feeling that something was amiss. How was their unified position reached outside of public view?

This spring was the first time in 20 years that judicial reappointments were challenged. And many citizens vehemently and passionately expressed their opposition to Judge Moskowitz, as well as to Judge Patricia Worth before him. In both cases, the Judiciary Committee nevertheless unanimously recommended approval. And at least in the case of Moskowitz, committee members allegedly deliberated outside of the public’s view and earshot.

This is extremely concerning. State mandates requiring the utmost transparency are meant to protect us all.

Input from those who are consumers of the court system – not just lawyers who earn their livings in front of judges – must be heard. People also deserve to know that the systems set up to protect them are working as they’re supposed to. When systems become about protecting themselves instead of the citizens they were designed to protect, the delicate fabric and balance of our constitutional rights is put in jeopardy. Legislative maneuvers that eliminate transparency and thereby remove public oversight are the antithesis of a democratic society.

We urge the Maine Legislature to take action and give the public answers. When asked to explain how his committee could unanimously approve a judge with no public discussion whatsoever, the chair of Judiciary Committee, Sen. David Burns (R-Washington), responded that, “it is unfortunate that some individuals and legislators have tried to impugn the integrity of the committee members.”

Those who may dismiss this call for investigation, attributing it to “sour grapes” or “angry litigants,” demonstrate a lack of respect for the most essential principles that define our nation.

To date, the president of the Maine Senate, Michael Thibodeau, has failed to respond to requests for a public inquiry about the actions of the Judiciary Committee.

This raises additional concerns. Without a legislative inquiry and report, Maine citizens will be left to wonder if their legislative and judiciary truly are the separate branches of government that are fundamental to freedom and liberty. We need to know what our legislators are doing – and why they’re doing it.

If you agree with me on this, We urge readers to contact their legislator and request an investigation. Let’s just find out what happened.”

While it took decades for a state representative to listen, then experience for himself, the egregious misconduct by member of the Judiciary Committee, the proof is in the pudding.

In rebuttal to the BDN’s report “This spring was the first time in 20 years that judicial re-appointments were challenged” is not correct. Several people testified before the committee in opposition to York County Superior Court Judge Arthur Brennan’s reappointment, less than 20 years ago.

“When asked to explain how his committee could unanimously approve a judge with no public discussion whatsoever, the chair of Judiciary Committee, Sen. David Burns (R-Washington), responded that, “it is unfortunate that some individuals and legislators have tried to impugn the integrity of the committee members.”

Senator David Burns was a member of the Judiciary Committee when former A.G. William Schneider was appointed to judgeship by Governor Paul LePage. Review “A System In Crisis” and you can come to your own conclusions as to the “criteria” used for confirmation of judges.
View HERE. (Opposition to nomination begins at 46:14)

“Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz was appointed to the District Court bench in January 2008 by Gov. John Baldacci after work as a prosecutor with the York County district attorney’s office. Gov. Paul LePage renominated Moskowitz to the bench last month along with eight of his colleagues.”

BDN reports ” A vote by the Judiciary Committee on the reappointment of the Maine judge was delayed Thursday until next week. Sen. David Burns, R-Whiting, chairman of the committee, said the delay would give District Court Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz and committee members an opportunity to read written testimony submitted before the hearing.

Burns said the committee would vote on Moskowitz’s renomination about 5 p.m. Tuesday.

More than half a dozen members of the legal community in Cumberland and York counties, including two district attorneys and a retired judge, spoke in favor of Moskowitz’s reappointment.

Moskowitz told the committee he wanted to keep his job.

“Like all people, I make mistakes,” he said. “You are all aware of my error issuing a controversial order. I sincerely regretted making that mistake. But I view my mistakes as a clear opportunity to learn and improve.”

Joshua Tardy, a Newport lawyer and former Republican legislator who is chairman of the governor’s judicial advisory committee, which vets judicial nominees, said the committee took concerns expressed about how Moskowitz handles family cases seriously.

“The committee felt an obligation to determine the veracity of the complaints about Judge Moskowitz,” Tardy told the committee. “I assure you that they have been taken seriously, and we have done our due diligence. We did not make a quick decision, but it was an easy decision once we had information.”

Moskowitz also was endorsed by the Maine State Bar Association and the Maine Trial Lawyers Association. The presidents of both organizations said they sought out members to ask about their experiences before Moskowitz and he was praised resoundingly.

Widespread reports from informants whom we know well have experienced in his court a repeated pattern of rudeness and disrespect, failure to follow the law.

The last time the committee rejected a nomination was in the late 1980s, according to Rep. Barry Hobbins, D-Saco, who has been a member of the Legislature since the 1970s.”

MPBN reports “Michael Welch, president of the Maine Trial Lawyers Association, said “We all make mistakes. How do you deal with it?” His organization endorsed Moskowitz’s reappointment because of his outstanding abilities as a judge.”

State Sen. David Dutremble, a Biddeford Democrat, says he had been approached by a number of people with complaints about Moskowitz and got no assistance from the Administrative Office of the Courts or the governor’s office when he tried to investigate those complaints. Dutremble was critical of the politics involved in judicial appointments.

“Attempts to escape politics inevitably result in heeding the advice of a narrow group of decision makers that express the opinions of special interests of segments. In Maine, the segment that votes on the judge is the bar – especially those members who are actively political within the bar,” Dutremble said. “The public and the ‘pro se’ users are excluded from the process.”

PPH reports “Attorney Joshua Tardy, who is chairman of Gov. Paul LePage’s Judicial Selection Committee, said his group conducted a thorough review before deciding to recommend Moskowitz.

“It was not a quick decision to be blunt, but it was an easy decision after all the deliberation. Judge Moskowitz is truly deserving of nomination,” Tardy said. “Our committee has received wide spread consensus and feedback that he is fair, that he is smart. He is honest. He is efficient.”

Other attorneys who spoke in favor of Moskowitz included David Levesque, president of the Maine State Bar Association; Robert Ruffner; Michael Welch, president of the Maine Trial Lawyers Association; Judy Potter; Kenneth Altshuler; Cumberland County District Attorney Stephanie Anderson; York County District Attorney Kathryn Slattery, Gerald Conley; Kristine Hanly; Diane Dusini; Robert Crowley, a retired judge; ; Ardith Keef and JohnWebb.

Notably, attorney Matthew Nichols, Webb’s law partner at Nichols and Webb, wrote a contradictory letter to the Judiciary Committee in which he said Moskowitz is “not a good judge.”

“If I had only my bad experiences with Judge Moskowitz, I would likely not be writing to you. But my own experiences have been echoed by countless other attorneys ranging from criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors, litigants and family law attorneys alike,” Nichols wrote in a letter dated May 4. “

The chairman of the committee, Sen. David Burns, R-Washington, on Thursday strictly enforced a three-minute time limit for testimony of Moskowitz’s opponents. But Burns allowed many attorneys in favor of Moskowitz to speak much longer.

Jerome Collins, who organizes an advocacy group called Maine Guardian Ad Litem Alerts, said he surveyed many citizens, as the Maine Bar Association, surveyed lawyers. He said citizens who appeared before Moskowitz who wanted to talk about him were those who felt wronged. He said that’s the opposite of lawyers who mostly only wanted to speak if they had something complimentary to say about the judge.

“What you really need is a legislative audit of the court to get the answer of what’s really going on. You need to conduct an in depth audit,” Collins said.

Other opponents who spoke against Moskowitz were Sen. David Dutremble, D-Biddeford; Falmouth activist Michael Doyle and Scarborough resident Robert Baizley.

None of the committee members asked Moskowitz any questions at the hearing.”

Moskowitz’s only supporter who was not a lawyer wasSen. Linda Valentino, D-Saco, who described herself as friends with Moskowitz.

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS: Written comments relevant to qualifications of the nominee may be filed with the Legislative Information Office by 9 am on the day of the hearing.
CONTACT PERSON: Casey Milligan, Legislative Information Office, 100 State House Station, Augusta, Maine 04333-0100; 207-287-1692

This proposed legislation further proves the “double standards”, whose “interests” it serves and begs many questions.

Judges retire, receive a pension, return to the bench and get more compensation…as this bill raises the per diem compensation for active retired judges and justices from $300 per day to $500 per day!

BAR members proposing raises for their “club”members.

When judges return to work is there a reduction in their pensions?

What about people on social security (living on less than a livable wage) who go back and are subject to reduction?

How about judges who strip people of entitled pensions in their decisions/judgments, causing financial hardship?

How about the VA which delays veterans’ pension claims for years/decades, causing financial hardship?

Ask your representative for help with these issues and you’ll get the standard answer “there’s nothing I can do.” Yet they can do plenty when it comes to their buddies.

Wouldn’t this bill in itself be considered fraudulent legislation, since it’s presented by BAR card carrying attorneys? A conflict of interest? A vested interest which would constitute a racketeering enterprise (RICO)?

Could this be considered embezzlement from the taxpayers who paid their salaries, their pensions and are now paying retirement and salary? Wouldn’t it be nice if we all could do that?

*Note: The Maine Supreme Court issued their opinion in the Question of Law presented to the court by Gov. LePage….We started the program with the opinion and didn’t get into the 100 Years of Law and Justice which ties in to the opinion. We will continue part 2 next week.

PPH reports” The Maine Freedom of Information Coalition praises Dolan for challenging a judge’s gag order and protecting public access to courtroom proceedings.

Dolan was covering a proceeding in Cumberland County Unified Criminal Court on Jan. 6 when Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz issued an order to the media to report only the statements made by the prosecutor and defense counsel in court. Moskowitz forbid the reporting of other statements made by potential victims in the case, which involved a lawyer who was charged with domestic violence.

*Note: The Maine Supreme Court issued their opinion in the Question of Law presented to the court by Gov. LePage….We started the program with the opinion and didn’t get into the 100 Years of Law and Justice which ties in to the opinion. We will continue part 2 next week.

DISCLAIMER

Any ad videos following any posts on this blog are posted by WordPress and is beyond this blog/editor’s control. These ad videos are not the responsibility of, nor endorsed by this blog/editor. This blog/editor does NOT receive any compensation or monies from these ad videos.

What Price Justice?

The main purpose of this blog is to bring the truth to the people of Maine and across this country about the corrupt state, judicial and federal officials who are influenced by special interests where our citizens are getting abused and where the perpetrators find shelter under the state and federal Attorneys General do-nothing umbrella of authority.
The dots will be connected to show a pattern of co-operation and obstruction of justice under color of legal authority between all levels of local, county, state and federal governments to sock it to us, intimidate and deny us due process. We are sitting ducks for official harassment and are getting wrongfully harmed, scammed, beaten, drugged or otherwise deprived of our life, liberty and property by a whole system of administrative terror which has grown up throughout the country.
Feel free to comment with any information you may have of corruption or abuse by the people or agencies you see listed here.

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.